First sound recordings of sharks captured by researchers, new study shows
The study, published Wednesday, found that the rig shark -- also known as the spotted estuary smoothhound -- produces clicking sounds when handled, according to the study.
"Sharks are maybe not as silent as we thought," Carolin Nieder, marine biologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution and lead author of the study, told ABC News.
Nieder said the sounds were "discovered by accident" as she was conducting another study analyzing the hearing capabilities of sharks during her doctorate program at the University of Auckland in New Zealand.
"I had never considered that any of the sharks I was studying could make any sort of sound. I was under the assumption that sharks are silent fish, so they wouldn't make any active sounds," she said.
Nieder caught seven rig sharks in the Kaipara Harbour in New Zealand, obtained three more from a local commercial fisherman and housed them in a marine laboratory in "circular flow-through holding tanks," the study said.
MORE: 2 friends injured in shark attack in the Bahamas speak out
After acclimating for at least a week, the sharks were transferred from their holding tank into an experimental tank, where the handling took place, the study said.
During the handling, the rigs were "opportunistically observed to produce clicking sounds underwater."
On average, the sharks produced "nine clicks during handling underwater" over the course of 20 seconds, with significantly more clicks during the preliminary 10 seconds, the study said.
The overall click duration was only 48 milliseconds, the study said.
Twenty-five percent of the clicks occurred when the sharks reacted with "vigorous bending of the head and body from side to side," about 70% occurred with "calm swaying," and 5% of clicks occurred in "the absence of any obvious body movements," the study said.
The initial handling "triggers a stress to startle response, resulting in increased click activity" and as the sharks become more accustomed to the handling, "the behavioral response likely diminishes, leading to fewer clicks over time," the study said.
MORE: American swimmer Ali Truwit wins silver in Paralympics 1 year after losing leg in shark attack
"The rig is a smaller shark. It's vulnerable to predation," Nieder said. "Maybe if a small shark like this gets attacked, maybe these clicks can disorient the predator for just a split second to escape."
Nieder told ABC News the rig shark is able to produce this clicking sound due to its flat teeth, which differ from the teeth other sharks possess.
Neil Hammerschlag, president of Atlantic Shark Expeditions who was not part of this study, said he has "long thought they must have some way to communicate through sound."
"The idea that some sharks are making sounds is exciting because to me. That suggests they could use that as a form of communication. This opens up an avenue for future research," Hammerschlag told ABC News.
Nieder hopes this initial observation will inspire others to dive into research surrounding sharks and that more people will be "curious about current notions and to keep listening to other animals and species that are deemed silent."
First sound recordings of sharks captured by researchers, new study shows originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
13 hours ago
- The Hill
Samples before space suits: America must be smart about its mission to Mars
On day one of this administration, the president included his ambitions for Mars in his inaugural address, and again several weeks later to a joint session of Congress: 'We are going to conquer the vast frontiers of science, and we are going to lead humanity into space and plant the American flag on the planet Mars, and even far beyond.' President Trump's vision for Mars is correct, and now there is a plan for the next steps in how he achieves it. The U.S. has led the world in the exploration of Mars since Vikings I and II landed in 1976. We now stand on the precipice of two ultimate achievements: the return of samples from Mars to Earth, and sending the first humans — Americans — to the Martian surface. The fiscal 2026 presidential budget request proposed 'to terminate the Mars Sample Return Program given that current architecture options remain unaffordable.' But, it adds: 'It is anticipated that future missions to Mars will return samples for study on Earth.' We need those samples robotically returned for study on Earth. Delaying Mars Sample Return or waiting for astronauts to pick them up will make the human exploration of Mars significantly more expensive and dangerous — and for the first time ever, almost certainly cede decades of U.S. space exploration leadership to China. A lower-cost robotic Mars Sample Return would more than pay for itself from savings realized by simplified human missions. Martian soil has substances known to be toxic, as well as uncharacterized biological potential. Without Mars Sample Return, human mission designs must account for the full range of possibilities and the most demanding scenarios. Laboratory tests are needed to make direct measurements of the Mars samples to determine concentrations and forms of toxic materials to understand threats and develop solutions. This will be needed to design spacesuits and protect astronauts from the fine martian dust. It allows risk mitigation to shift from large and expensive requirements to quantifiable ones with reduced uncertainties. While no martian life has been detected yet, our exploration has shown that much of Mars would previously have been habitable, and parts of Mars may currently still be habitable. In advance of humans to Mars, we need to robotically return samples in a highly controlled manner to satisfy planetary protection back-contamination requirements to ensure that Mars does not have organisms that might impact human health or have adverse effects on Earth's biosphere. Mars Sample Return will accelerate U.S. leadership in space. Mars is several hundred times farther from Earth than the Moon. Using current propulsion technologies, a Mars round trip will take up to three years, with minimal abort opportunities, as compared to Apollo's round trip of days. Even then, there were three uncrewed and four crewed missions before Apollo 11, the first Moon landing. Completing Mars Sample Return supports technology demos needed for human missions, such as advancing from the current precision landing (7-10 km) to pinpoint landing (~100 m) to put astronauts in proximity to safe sites and pre-positioned supplies. Mars Sample Return also achieves a profound international first: the first samples — with potential for evidence of life — returned from Mars. These samples might once and for all answer the fundamental question of 'Are we alone in the universe,' and that is a question we most certainly want the United States to answer first. Lockheed Martin, my former employer, has been studying Mars Sample Return missions for more than 50 years, and is confident it can deliver an end-to-end architecture for under $3 billion — less than half of previous estimates — by leveraging heritage components, reducing design complexity, and streamlining the program structure. They have built and flown four highly successful Mars landers and four highly successful Mars orbiters, as well as pioneered all three of NASA's previous sample return missions (returning material from a comet, the solar wind and an asteroid), and have established credibility and mission success across a wide variety of additional deep space missions, from Venus to Saturn. NASA's Mars 2020 rover, Perseverance or 'Percy,' at Jezero Crater has been caching an unparalleled set of samples that will shed more light on the history of Mars than all previous Mars missions combined. China has announced it plans to launch a sample return mission to Mars in 2028, with an Earth return likely in 2031. If we forgo the timely return of Percy's superior set of samples, it will be China that leaps ahead. Mars soil and dust are uniquely different, and potentially dangerous — returning samples should precede astronauts going to Mars, while also maintaining our nation's pre-eminence in Mars exploration as NASA lays the groundwork for the next giant leap. Ben Clark has been a member of the science teams of every NASA mission to explore the surface of Mars, and designed the instrument on Viking that made the first analysis of martian soil. He was chief scientist for deep space exploration at Lockheed Martin. Currently, he helps analyze chemical compositions of the diverse samples the Perseverance rover has been acquiring during its multi-year trek on Mars.
CNBC
a day ago
- CNBC
Trump warned by top Senate Democrats to rethink advanced AI chip sales to China
Six Senate Democrats on Friday released an open letter asking President Donald Trump to reconsider his decision to allow tech giants Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to sell AI semiconductor chips to China in exchange for 15% of revenue from the sales. The letter — signed by Senators Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.; Mark Warner, D-Va.; Jack Reed, D-R.I.; Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H.; Christopher Coons, D-Del.; and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. — was in response to an Aug. 11 announcement by Trump that Nvidia and AMD would pay the U.S. government a 15% cut of revenue from chip sales to China in exchange for export licenses. "Our national security and military readiness relies upon American innovators inventing and producing the best technology in the world, and in maintaining that qualitative advantage in sensitive domains. The United States has historically been successful in maintaining and building that advantage because of, in part, our ability to deny adversaries access to those technologies," the letter states. "The willingness displayed in this arrangement to 'negotiate' away America's competitive edge that is key to our national security in exchange for what is, in effect, a commission on a sale of AI-enabling technology to our main global competitor, is cause for serious alarm," the letter continues. Senators also warned that selling advanced AI chips — specifically Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips — to China could help strengthen its military systems, a claim that Nvidia denies. In a statement to CNBC, a Nvidia spokesperson said: "The H20 would not enhance anyone's military capabilities, but would have helped America attract the support of developers worldwide and win the AI race. Banning the H20 cost American taxpayers billions of dollars, without any benefit." The letter from Senate Democrats also requests a detailed response from the administration by Friday, Aug. 22, regarding the current deal involving Nvidia and AMD, as well as any similar arrangements being made with other companies. "We again urge your administration to quickly reverse course and abandon this reckless plan to trade away U.S. technology leadership," the letter states. A request for comment from the White House and AMD was not immediately returned. Despite Trump allowing chip sales to resume, it has already become clear that China isn't welcoming Nvidia back with open arms, instead urging tech companies to avoid buying U.S. companies' chips, according to a Bloomberg report. "We're hearing that this is a hard mandate, and that [authorities are actually] stopping additional orders of H20s for some companies," Qingyuan Lin, a senior analyst covering China semiconductors at Bernstein, told CNBC. In a separate report, The Information said regulators in China have ordered major tech companies, including ByteDance, Alibaba, and Tencent, to suspend Nvidia chip purchases until a national security review is complete. —
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
America's nuclear energy moment is here — let's seize it
In 1960, Dr. Glenn Seaborg, then-chairman of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, confidently predicted that nuclear energy would power half of American homes by the year 2000. For a while, it looked like he might be right. Between 1967 and 1974, U.S. utilities ordered nearly 200 nuclear reactors. But momentum stalled as cost overruns, regulatory hurdles, slowing demand and accidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and later Fukushima eroded public confidence. Projects were canceled, and the nation's once-robust nuclear manufacturing base faded. Today, it seems like Seaborg's prediction wasn't wrong — just too early. A new generation of nuclear reactors — with advanced designs that safely cool and shut down reactors without the need for power or operator intervention — has made such accidents virtually impossible. Meanwhile, soaring electricity demand, driven by artificial intelligence, and rising geopolitical risks have underscored the need for energy that is clean, safe, reliable and abundant — four boxes that only nuclear energy checks. I have witnessed nuclear's resurgence firsthand in my role at the engineering and construction firm Bechtel. We successfully helped bring Georgia Power's two new reactors online in 2023 and 2024, and are currently working to deliver nuclear projects in Tennessee and Wyoming. Overseas, we're helping Poland build its first nuclear plant — a reminder that U.S. nuclear leadership also expands our geopolitical influence, rather than ceding it to Russia and China. Fortunately, the Trump administration understands the stakes and has issued executive orders aimed at quadrupling domestic nuclear capacity by 2050. With its sights set on a true nuclear renaissance, the government — together with the nuclear industry — should focus on clearing the four biggest hurdles in nuclear's path. First, we must confront the elephant in the room: cost. Critics who say nuclear energy is too expensive underestimate both its long-term value and American ingenuity. A nuclear plant's low operating costs and long lifespan make the cost per unit of energy highly competitive. Meanwhile, each new project helps technology developers and utilities standardize reactors, enabling builders like Bechtel to standardize engineering designs, scale supply chains and deploy new construction methods such as digital execution and modularization. The result is shorter schedules, lower costs and greater certainty of outcome. Controlling cost is also about reducing 'project execution' risk for investors. If we want to expand nuclear energy and unlock efficiency gains, we will need more help from the government to assume some of the financial risk of first-mover projects. As the industry rebuilds its capability to deliver, new nuclear projects can be susceptible to delays and cost overruns that deter investors. To stimulate the market, the government must absorb some of the early project cost overrun risks — just as other countries are already doing to grow their nuclear power output. Second, the U.S. should deliver on its obligation under law to establish a sustainable national program for permanently disposing of spent nuclear fuel. While today's storage methods are designed to work safely for 80 years or more, a long-term solution would resolve this challenge and strengthen public confidence in nuclear power. Third, regulators must continue modernizing. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in particular, plays an indispensable role in maintaining high industry standards and has made progress in updating its approach to approving projects. But the framework, built in the 1970s, lags behind the modular, standardized and inherently safer designs of today's nuclear reactors. Significant opportunities remain to streamline approvals without compromising safety. The Trump administration's new executive order encouraging the commission to reform is a welcome step in the right direction. Fourth, and perhaps most urgently, we need people. America is grappling with a skilled labor shortage, from welders to electricians and heavy equipment operators. Here, too, the administration can and is beginning to lead by incentivizing partnerships between industry and education and by expanding access to vocational training. We need to make sure that joining the construction trades is a rewarding, fulfilling and safe career. We need to reshape perceptions that you can only get ahead with a four-year degree, which is simply not true and even misleading to the younger generation. A national campaign should champion these careers as mission-driven, innovative and essential to America's future. There are no silver bullets in energy policy. Solar, gas and emerging technologies will all be part of the equation. But failing to realize the full potential of nuclear energy's promise would be a costly mistake — economically, environmentally and geopolitically. A strong U.S. nuclear program will produce more than megawatts. It will catalyze life-changing technologies, a robust national industrial base and a brighter future for generations. If we get it right, maybe someone in 2075 will look back at today as the moment when America glimpsed its energy moonshot and seized the opportunity to lead. Craig Albert is president and chief operating officer of the engineering and construction company Bechtel. He previously led its nuclear, security and environmental unit.
